The limitations of science

[meeno8]

It has been proposed here that proof of any existence of this life is sorely lacking due to that absence of any empirical evidence to support that concept.  We have come a very long way since Euclid defined space as the set of all points.  Now with superstring theory, which goes beyond the Einsteinian 4D space/time continuum with 11 dimensions (acintya or inconceivable for our limited brain power).  If we consider the more important reality for us to be only what can be perceived with our sense organs and extensions scientific instruments provide to those, at least in terms of us only consisting of matter and consciousness somehow restricted to electrical impulses in our brains and nervous systems (our physical anatomy) - is that reasonable or just hubris that we can make any such presuppositions that any underlying reality that supports continuation of consciousness beyond physical death of the organism is not a higher level of reality than what we can perceive within the limits of the sensory realm?

In the very entertaining film Religulous Bill Maher admits that despite being an atheist as part of his comedy that pokes fun at religions, he admits that he just does not have actual knowledge of any deity, and how blind faith within religion is pretty ridiculous when critical thinking is applied.  So, in short he explains that it is hubris to be certain of one's articles of religious faith just as it is to be certain of one's atheistic stance.

We can drill down into the finer points and nuances of epistemology that philosophers have grappled with over the millennia.  And there are very good reasons for that particular branch of philosophical discourse.

Food for thought, or prasad for the jiva?  Depends on your own perspective I suppose.

[meeno8]

In the insightful book Shrinks the difference between psychiatrists that went to medical school and psychologists that did not is very apparent. You could say that the former are actual medical scientists and the later pseudo scientists from the information presented in that book. The field of psychiatry is constantly evolving with the latest discoveries about the brain from neurologists in the field. Psychology is still stuck in the past with their labels of all sorts of 'neuroses'. A 'neurosis' to a psychiatrist is more or less laughable psycho babble mumbo jumbo. Still, they need to keep their PhDs in psychology happy due to their working relationship in treating patients via talk therapy and group therapy (the domain of the psychologists) in conjunction with the medications that the psychologists cannot prescribe since they are not medical doctors licensed to do that, at least not in the US.

[meeno8]

Please do not get the wrong idea here. I have great respect for Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker and his books. The first title I read was Enlightenment Now, which is about the principles of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason need to be reaffirmed every few decades on Western society. I still reading through his book on Rationality. Those subjects, however, along with his Better Angels of Our Nature (from a quote by Abraham Lincoln) on the history of the gradual decline in violence the past few millennia, have nothing to do with psychology with respect to psychotherapy. Plus my niece did here PhD thesis in psychology on neurotransmitters in the human brain, which is typically in the domain of neurology, the sub specialty of brain surgeons whom are MDs.

[meeno8]

When I was a teenager, I tripped on the patio in the backyard of a friend that was having their birthday party. None of us were on any kind of psychedelic drugs that cause hallucinations. To our collective amazement (mine and those standing around witnessing my fall) I fell in slow motion and gently landed on the cement with no injuries. Those witnessing that event wanted me to do it again. I had to explain that I did not do it on purpose, so I was not about to tempt fate by deliberately falling again to see what would happen. My Catholic upbringing would suggest it was the intervention of my guardian angel.

Was there any scientific explanation for the law of gravity being temporarily suspended? In the realm of science, everything needs to be verified by repeatable experiments either in the laboratory, or in the case of Einstein's theories of relativity observations of the bending of light during a complete solar eclipse for example.

Something like anecdotal accounts such as these need to be rejected by the scientific community as non-verifiable. However, that does not mean they cannot happen, as rare as they certainly are.

There is quite a bit of alleged evidence of experiments during the cold war on the part of the CIA and the KGB with psychic powers such as remote viewing on the part of subjects.